open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Sovereignty--Breaking the Chains
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 ... : last (23)

Author Topic

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2009.09.12 14:47:00 - [511]
 

I read most of the thread ...

The talk of altering true sec to get more rats - This doesn't make sense. Let's build up Park Avenue and invite the criminals to the tea house. An ability to find more plexes, or a worm hole generator to get into W space. Maybe the "hidden gate detector" that leads to X space, some hidden rat gate to some hidden rat system that lasts for 48 hours and full of rat loot - maybe the hidden system has gates to other 0.0 areas too and you might find your enemies in there ... Would be better. With W space code now implemented, this, X space, could be done rather easily.

Gate control - Gates are an artificial means to push people to one spot so you can shoot each other, that's it. They limit game play too much already. Allowing someone to lock them or put up guns or make them more limiting than they already are would be a bad idea. Silly things should be gotten rid of anyway.

Exponential Cost - Yay. Should be more expensive/more difficult to hold larger and larger areas. The treaty idea fits into this very well. It will allow the creation of new political structures. Federations, Confederations, Republics, Feudal ... All will have more value.

No POS and Sov - Good. One of the things that keeps people away from even wanting to be involved in Sov, tiresome chores. Eve is a game and a hobby, not a job.

Wealth Distribution - Dunno what's gonna happen with moons, but even distribution of materials would work better. Economies work better when more entities participate in the market. As for players ... They need to make more ISK as individuals in 0.0 space. I know you're a business CCP, but the encouragement of multiple accounts to overcome issues such as 0.0 ISK faucets and Security Status is rude, and no, nerfing lvl 4 ISK won't fix that. The X space idea above could do that on an almost unlimited basis providing the spawn rate in X space were (please) faster than W space, which is boringly slow.

Transition - I'm sure CCP isn't going to hit the disband button on everyone, and I suspect that on day zero everyone will magically have all their new Dominion bunker thingers or whatever they are called poofed into place. Will probably have a month to decide what to do with them all before anyone will have to pay a bill. Give CCP some credit. Though they make design choices that I find odd sometimes, they are not idiots.

Cyno - Caps are big and slow and jumping all over creation is silly. They should be The toys pulled out for the final assault, the big boom. Not "hey let's go roam in caps! X up for cap roam, hot drop some miners dewds!" Allow Mommies and Titans to dock in the home systems, with a cap ship dock array or something. Let people keep the big toys home and safe. If someone is always stuck in one of the things, that they paid months and months of subscription time, and all the effort, of course they're going to want to use it, and for the most mundane of things, since they can't do anything else.

Scorched Earth - An alliance should be able to destroy its own assets (with all Security concerns in place, as per the BoB incident.) It should be a risk to the attacker that all their efforts may provide them with nothing of their enemies assets. Since space can be improved, the gain should be the space and the ability to improve it, not the improvements them selves.

Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar
Ma'adim Logistics
Posted - 2009.09.12 15:33:00 - [512]
 

Originally by: XXXAKTIVE
Edited by: XXXAKTIVE on 12/09/2009 14:26:57
It is much easier to claim systems with outposts. For example the outpost built in the system will give SOV to the systems nearby, for example 4 AU or something. And make outposts destructable (a hell of a lot of HP, but destructable). The problem of claims will be solved easily


Since outposts aren't possible to destroy and the cost of one is oh 25bn or thereabouts I doubt that is ever going to be how sov is claimed.

Rumba Purring
Posted - 2009.09.12 16:05:00 - [513]
 

Originally by: Aralis
Obviously I'm not happy about this. I don't suppose anyone who understands how 0.0 empires work and is in one is. But that's a given - the patch is obviously designed to make life harder for 0.0 empires. How much harder we'd need details to see. As things currently stand it sounds like holding space in 0.0 wouldn't be realistic for anyone - I doubt it's that bad and there are good parts we have yet to see.

However I'm sure they don't care what I like or dislike. Like I said this is obviously designed to mess us up so we wouldn't would we?

What puzzles me is what is CCPs aim here? Is it that they think more people will go to 0.0 if the empires are broken? Seems very unlikely to me but I could be wrong. Does anyone have any insight into what CCP are trying to achieve?


I doubt CCP's intention is to purposefully single out a certain group of players to harass.

I wager their intention is simple and is exactly as they stated: they want to improve EVE as a game (shock!). The current sovereignty game has been played ad nauseum for a few years. While it was great fun, there are cracks and annoyances. Also, having played it, more interesting ideas have been generated, which could make the game even more fun and interesting.

So it's time to introduce a new game.

As a by-product, this adversely hurts players who have excelled and placed high in the current game. On the other hand, I have no doubt the qualities that brought success to current winners (strategic thinking, dedication, team-work, risk taking) are likely to reap rewards again once the new game arrives.

Interesting times ahead.

Garok Nor
Caldari
Blueprint Haus
Get Off My Lawn
Posted - 2009.09.12 16:19:00 - [514]
 

Originally by: Ezekiel Sulastin
Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 10/09/2009 17:46:57
Originally by: Jack Gilligan
That's all well and good, but it'd be nice if you guys realized that releasing incomplete generalities like this dev "blog" full of cataclysmic generalities with few (almost no) specifics is far FAR worse than detailing "this is our plan A at the moment, if it proves unworkable, we'll come back with plan B".


This. Good God, this. Did you fire your customer relations department a few months ago, CCP? It sure as heck feels like it ...


Ever consider this is CCP's way of brainstorming with the playerbase to see if they come up with anything they hadn't thought of that might go wrong with or improve the Dominion patch?

I see this whole thread as a sort of townhall on the coming major changes... 17 pages of input so far... a lot of concerns plus some really good (and many whacky) ideas. I doubt CCP is ignoring what is being said in this thread (except the odd OMG the sky is falling post with nothing else of substance in it).

R&D mate... R&D... would you rather they just implemented the patch and said "hai guise here's what we did like it or leave it"?

Alisaadi Chorster
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.09.12 17:04:00 - [515]
 

After reading through most of the posts in here I would like to add my 2 isk input. There is no way CCP can help a small alliance move into null sec if the larger Alliances does not want them there. I would assume that CCP will deploy a patch weeks before the upgrade that will place a flag in every system that sov can be established. This will allow the current sov holder the option to declare they will hold sov in that system and know how much isk up front it will cost to keep it the way it is. Example would be a sov4 super capital building system will need all military upgrades to keep the level to where it is cyno jammed have a cyno beacon to jump only alliance capital ships in and out. This will make it difficult to invade, but produce no income and have a high upkeep. Lets say they choose to claim the system with economical upgrades there would be many rats, complexes and wormholes. The higher the upgrade the the higher the bounty on rats the better the complex and the more stable the wormhole(s). The down side there will be no cyno jammer, jump bridge and a local that is delayed. This system would give your alliance a large amount of isk with greater risk. The Industrial system will have more belt and high end moons and the planets will provide industrial benefits. The system will have better defendable upgrades a local that updates faster but still be vulnerable to attacks. The income will not be as immediate as a economical system but will generate isk after added work is done.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2009.09.12 17:34:00 - [516]
 

Originally by: Anonymouns Whiners

Ever consider this is CCP's way of brainstorming with the playerbase to see if they come up with anything they hadn't thought of that might go wrong with or improve the Dominion patch?



Same group will complain later that CCP never listens.

XXXAKTIVE
Posted - 2009.09.12 18:41:00 - [517]
 

Edited by: XXXAKTIVE on 12/09/2009 18:44:59
Edited by: XXXAKTIVE on 12/09/2009 18:42:46
Edited by: XXXAKTIVE on 12/09/2009 18:41:14
Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal
Originally by: XXXAKTIVE
Edited by: XXXAKTIVE on 12/09/2009 14:26:57
It is much easier to claim systems with outposts. For example the outpost built in the system will give SOV to the systems nearby, for example 4 AU or something. And make outposts destructable (a hell of a lot of HP, but destructable). The problem of claims will be solved easily


Since outposts aren't possible to destroy and the cost of one is oh 25bn or thereabouts I doubt that is ever going to be how sov is claimed.


This will make things easier. Outposts could be made destructable. It is not a big deal.
Also give the ability to fit outposts with repair modules and guns and hardeners.
It would be fun, I assure U

About 25 bils... There are lot of titans in Eve, each titan costs at least 60bln + fitting) So it is not so expensive as U may think

Vergil Kankuro
Posted - 2009.09.12 20:28:00 - [518]
 

This sounds like an amazing idea, the sov system is getting to be a bit old and wrinkly. But this also represents an opportunity to make mom's and titans more integral to sov holding, rather than just products of it. Perhaps say that the 'sov flag' can only be planted by a supercapital, or if planet colonization comes into it somehow then that would be a supercapital affair as well. Would certainly increase the need for supercaps in the game, rather than just as hugely expensive liabilities.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.09.12 20:36:00 - [519]
 

Originally by: Adunh Slavy
The talk of altering true sec to get more rats - This doesn't make sense. Let's build up Park Avenue and invite the criminals to the tea house.


Rats are already completely nonsensical (why are they just hanging out in the asteroid belts waiting to be shot? Why especially are haulers full of minerals just sitting there too? Why don't they warp away when you break their tank? Why don't they call their buddies in from the other belts to help them when you attack? Who is putting the bounties on their heads out in 0.0? Why do they only fit one gun? Why do the weapons they drop not match the weapons they attack you with? Why do officer and faction spawns go into battle with expensive implants and BPCs sitting in their cargohold?), so I don't see why an extra layer of implausibility on top of the rest should harm things too much.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.09.12 20:48:00 - [520]
 

Originally by: Vergil Kankuro
This sounds like an amazing idea, the sov system is getting to be a bit old and wrinkly. But this also represents an opportunity to make mom's and titans more integral to sov holding, rather than just products of it. Perhaps say that the 'sov flag' can only be planted by a supercapital, or if planet colonization comes into it somehow then that would be a supercapital affair as well. Would certainly increase the need for supercaps in the game, rather than just as hugely expensive liabilities.


"Hey guys welcome to the open-ended player-driven sandbox of 0.0 where you are free to tread your own path, oh by the way the rules are you can only be a spaceholding alliance if you have a fleet of supercaps"

This is a horrible idea. Changing the sov system so small alliances have a chance to take space is completely pointless if you then force them to spend 20bn or 50bn they don't have on a bunch of 'hugely expensive liability' ships for a few poor suckers to sit in and plant flags. There's too many Titans in game (like, 10 or 20 times too many) as it is without making them a mandatory tool for territorial warfare.

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2009.09.12 20:53:00 - [521]
 

Enough talking. CCP we are waiting on SISI Twisted EvilTwisted EvilTwisted Evil

Poseign
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.09.12 21:56:00 - [522]
 

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Vergil Kankuro
This sounds like an amazing idea, the sov system is getting to be a bit old and wrinkly. But this also represents an opportunity to make mom's and titans more integral to sov holding, rather than just products of it. Perhaps say that the 'sov flag' can only be planted by a supercapital, or if planet colonization comes into it somehow then that would be a supercapital affair as well. Would certainly increase the need for supercaps in the game, rather than just as hugely expensive liabilities.


"Hey guys welcome to the open-ended player-driven sandbox of 0.0 where you are free to tread your own path, oh by the way the rules are you can only be a spaceholding alliance if you have a fleet of supercaps"

This is a horrible idea. Changing the sov system so small alliances have a chance to take space is completely pointless if you then force them to spend 20bn or 50bn they don't have on a bunch of 'hugely expensive liability' ships for a few poor suckers to sit in and plant flags. There's too many Titans in game (like, 10 or 20 times too many) as it is without making them a mandatory tool for territorial warfare.


not to mention the new mechanics will make building these supercaps more risky than it is currently, considering POS's will no longer have the sov 4 immunity.

caps and supercaps are there to give an easier way to take space by force, not to be the only way.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2009.09.12 23:08:00 - [523]
 

I think one of the more interesting aspects to come out of the recent dev blog is the potential for treaties to be used to enhance sovereign control.

Ive long thought that the best route to encouraging players out into .0 would be by providing incentives to Alliances to accept the presence of 'neutrals'.

Think of it this way. If a sovereignty holding Alliance benefited or even needed a '3rd party' to provide legitimacy to its ownership of a system this would be of benefit to both parties. Assuming the process required a modicum of effort on the part of the 3rd party the risk of 'alt corps' being used would be reduced.

C.


Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2009.09.12 23:44:00 - [524]
 

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
I don't see why an extra layer of implausibility on top of the rest should harm things too much.


There's lots of better ways to introduce profitable PVE ratting to "improved" 0.0 besides the same lame old belt rating. That's why.

Aquinzus
Amarr
Modern Marvels
Posted - 2009.09.13 03:02:00 - [525]
 

I have a few questions, comments and inquiries.

1. On patch day will soverignty be reset for everyone to 0 until they go and plant a bunker flag whatever?

2. What will be the requirements to have a Cyno Jammer ?

3. What will be the requirements to have a Jump bridge ?

4. What will be the requirements to have an outpost ?

5. What makes you think CCP that Goons, -A-, PL, NC, CVA, RA, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDeathXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, etc etc etc etc are going to allow anyone to just come on over and claim a system and be left alone?

Do you think that Johnny Q Spaceman and his 100 man Alliance outfit is going to be able to walk into someones space and claim it just because you cant claim it with pos anymore your wrong. Johnny and his buddies will be smacked down and sent back home to empire and that same space will sit there with 0 Sov level on it still controlled by same poeple as before.

They just not going to buy your bunker flag BS and plant it so that some 20 man roaming Stealth Bomber gang can come by and bask at washing in blood as you so put it, in over 1 Billion of distructable assets hanging out at a gate. And if you think Johnny Q and his buddies are able to face the like of -A-, Goons, NC, CVA, etc etc etc then your sorely mistaken.

This is going to do nothing for the small guy, CCP sorry your not going to make a patch that turns people into CVA, those other guys shoot people for being neutral, the very minute a neutral shows up he is dead. Alliances are not going to allow people to move to 0.0 and claim thier space that they had sov over only 24 hours before patch.

0.0 Alliances for the exception of CVA/Sylph wont allow you to enter thier space, and operate NBSI. This is why more people are not in 0.0. Not because of sov and sov warefare.


You want more people in 0.0 CCP? Then send a GM letter to each 0.0 Alliance and ask them to allow neutrals in thier space and adapt NRDS policies, until that happens no matter how you screw up Sov again, people are not goign to move to 0.0 period.


Aralis
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.13 04:39:00 - [526]
 

Originally by: Aquinzus
I have a few questions, comments and inquiries.

1. On patch day will soverignty be reset for everyone to 0 until they go and plant a bunker flag whatever?

2. What will be the requirements to have a Cyno Jammer ?

3. What will be the requirements to have a Jump bridge ?

4. What will be the requirements to have an outpost ?

5. What makes you think CCP that Goons, -A-, PL, NC, CVA, RA, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDeathXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, etc etc etc etc are going to allow anyone to just come on over and claim a system and be left alone?

Do you think that Johnny Q Spaceman and his 100 man Alliance outfit is going to be able to walk into someones space and claim it just because you cant claim it with pos anymore your wrong. Johnny and his buddies will be smacked down and sent back home to empire and that same space will sit there with 0 Sov level on it still controlled by same poeple as before.

They just not going to buy your bunker flag BS and plant it so that some 20 man roaming Stealth Bomber gang can come by and bask at washing in blood as you so put it, in over 1 Billion of distructable assets hanging out at a gate. And if you think Johnny Q and his buddies are able to face the like of -A-, Goons, NC, CVA, etc etc etc then your sorely mistaken.

This is going to do nothing for the small guy, CCP sorry your not going to make a patch that turns people into CVA, those other guys shoot people for being neutral, the very minute a neutral shows up he is dead. Alliances are not going to allow people to move to 0.0 and claim thier space that they had sov over only 24 hours before patch.

0.0 Alliances for the exception of CVA/Sylph wont allow you to enter thier space, and operate NBSI. This is why more people are not in 0.0. Not because of sov and sov warefare.


You want more people in 0.0 CCP? Then send a GM letter to each 0.0 Alliance and ask them to allow neutrals in thier space and adapt NRDS policies, until that happens no matter how you screw up Sov again, people are not goign to move to 0.0 period.




All pretty clear. THough I assume the bit about a mail to alliance leaderships is a joke. I hope CCP would never consider getting in the game so directly. But the trouble is that NRDS is Eve on hard mode. It does clearly require a lot more work - why should most people do it? Certainly this patch is all set to make life a lot harder for NRDS and gotta wonder if we can keep it up in these conditions. Also for the same sort of reasons alliances will be much less inclined to let anyone else set up camp near them. The risks are going up.

Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar
Ma'adim Logistics
Posted - 2009.09.13 04:54:00 - [527]
 

Originally by: XXXAKTIVE


This will make things easier. Outposts could be made destructable. It is not a big deal.
Also give the ability to fit outposts with repair modules and guns and hardeners.
It would be fun, I assure U

About 25 bils... There are lot of titans in Eve, each titan costs at least 60bln + fitting) So it is not so expensive as U may think



Fun, perhaps.
Possible, maybe.
The reason outposts aren't possible to destroy is probably the same reason why we can't have piloted ships in other piloted ships (carriers etc) namely database.
It is probably not as simple as setting a arbitrary number for HP etc.
As for the cost, yes there are lots of titans in the game. Most are bought for with income from moon goo, 25bn is a huge barrier to entry which won't change much.

Mara Intala
Posted - 2009.09.13 05:26:00 - [528]
 

Originally by: Aquinzus
I have a few questions, comments and inquiries.
5. What makes you think CCP that Goons, -A-, PL, NC, CVA, RA, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDeathXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, etc etc etc etc are going to allow anyone to just come on over and claim a system and be left alone?

Do you think that Johnny Q Spaceman and his 100 man Alliance outfit is going to be able to walk into someones space and claim it just because you cant claim it with pos anymore your wrong. Johnny and his buddies will be smacked down and sent back home to empire and that same space will sit there with 0 Sov level on it still controlled by same poeple as before.

They just not going to buy your bunker flag BS and plant it so that some 20 man roaming Stealth Bomber gang can come by and bask at washing in blood as you so put it, in over 1 Billion of distructable assets hanging out at a gate. And if you think Johnny Q and his buddies are able to face the like of -A-, Goons, NC, CVA, etc etc etc then your sorely mistaken.

This is going to do nothing for the small guy, CCP sorry your not going to make a patch that turns people into CVA, those other guys shoot people for being neutral, the very minute a neutral shows up he is dead. Alliances are not going to allow people to move to 0.0 and claim thier space that they had sov over only 24 hours before patch.

0.0 Alliances for the exception of CVA/Sylph wont allow you to enter thier space, and operate NBSI. This is why more people are not in 0.0. Not because of sov and sov warefare.


You want more people in 0.0 CCP? Then send a GM letter to each 0.0 Alliance and ask them to allow neutrals in thier space and adapt NRDS policies, until that happens no matter how you screw up Sov again, people are not goign to move to 0.0 period.




QFT

Personally I think the patch looks amazing. Made me and my corp. want to get a system or 2 in Sov. But of course what one would want, and what happens is very different. There is no way in H*LL that we would ever be able to get Sov. Not with out requiring a hundred+ PVP pilots and a cap fleet.

The only way that we would eve be able to get into 0.0 is, A. Pay an LARGE sum of isk to one of the major alliances to get blue standings and be a pet. B. Pay an even higher amount of isk to rent a couple systems and get blue standings to be a renter pet. C. If, and only IF we met there requirements join an alliance that already has Sov, but that, itself defeats the purpose of trying to get Sov for our selves.

Think about it for a second. All the large alliances need to do to keep all there space is to block the entry points. If you cant get in, you cant use the space, and in a sense they keep there space and donít need to spend any isk at all.

/ends ramblings

The only way I can see smaller alliances getting into 0.0 is if CCP adds a LOT more systems that lead to 0.0, so the large alliances wont have such an easy time blocking the entry way.Crying or Very sad

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.09.13 06:13:00 - [529]
 

Quote:
A. Pay an LARGE sum of isk to one of the major alliances to get blue standings and be a pet. B. Pay an even higher amount of isk to rent a couple systems and get blue standings to be a renter pet.

Pay a small ammount of isk to rent a couple of systems and get blue standings?

Since it wont be possible anymore for one alliance to control a few regions due to the use of cynojammers, jump bridges, pos', etc (well that is at least ccps goal), they would then only have roughly 1 region. Now either they can try to kill everyone trying to get sov arround them, which might work a bit. Or they can decrease isk cost of becoming a renter by alot, so those systems surrounding theirs do have sov and become a better buffer zone.

Lusulpher
Gallente
Posted - 2009.09.13 06:23:00 - [530]
 

Possible solution to the NAP would probably be in the Treaty system...make those nullsec allies pay to be allied.

Just like wardecs, scaled for large alliances and such. Throw in integrated comms for the alliance but make them choose a few allies or 2 to function with seamlessly, any other corp blue additions would have to prove their worth.

And that makes it real political/economic instead of carebear like it is now. All the fighting this will create.Twisted Evil

Wow. Sleep dep creates some nice game fixes.Shocked

XXXAKTIVE
Posted - 2009.09.13 07:44:00 - [531]
 

Edited by: XXXAKTIVE on 13/09/2009 07:49:13
Originally by: Aquinzus


You want more people in 0.0 CCP? Then send a GM letter to each 0.0 Alliance and ask them to allow neutrals in thier space and adapt NRDS policies, until that happens no matter how you screw up Sov again, people are not goign to move to 0.0 period.




Everyone neutral, who enters the 0.0 space is red by default. Noone comes to 0.0 space from neutrals with peace. Noone will let them fly safe in controlled systems. Never ever! They are just enemies and they will be ones untill they get official + status.
Coming update will cause chaos in EVE, thats for sure.

I think, that lots of empire alliances will start merging to try to swarm 0.0 space.

I am quite satisfied with the current laws in 0.0 space.
The diplomatic issues will bring alliance leaders a lot of head ache if there will be too many independant alliances in 0.0 space.

Yes, claim dynamics must be changed totally, but it must not hurt the existing game balance.


Elfangor
Posted - 2009.09.13 09:03:00 - [532]
 

if players are going to support the opperation of gate systems than there must be some control for the players over who uses them.

and any changes too the sov system should include a radical redraw of the 0.0 map. Blobing has always been a problem in eve even before sov came along and it has always been linked to the limited targets players can attack and the limit travel routes they can take to attack those targets. if every 0.0 system in eve could be bypassed in 1-3 jumps then this more then anything will force smaller claims to space and incurage several smaller active gangs to form instead of one massive blob.

SickSeven
Simplistic Syndicate
Posted - 2009.09.13 09:34:00 - [533]
 

Originally by: Elfangor
if players are going to support the opperation of gate systems than there must be some control for the players over who uses them.

and any changes too the sov system should include a radical redraw of the 0.0 map. Blobing has always been a problem in eve even before sov came along and it has always been linked to the limited targets players can attack and the limit travel routes they can take to attack those targets. if every 0.0 system in eve could be bypassed in 1-3 jumps then this more then anything will force smaller claims to space and incurage several smaller active gangs to form instead of one massive blob.


I think this guy is onto something. If more systems were interconnected then some systems would not be more overly important than others. And if you could now bypass certain 'hubs' then that would encourage smaller claims of space.

iP0D
Posted - 2009.09.13 11:43:00 - [534]
 

Originally by: SickSeven
Originally by: Elfangor
if players are going to support the opperation of gate systems than there must be some control for the players over who uses them.

and any changes too the sov system should include a radical redraw of the 0.0 map. Blobing has always been a problem in eve even before sov came along and it has always been linked to the limited targets players can attack and the limit travel routes they can take to attack those targets. if every 0.0 system in eve could be bypassed in 1-3 jumps then this more then anything will force smaller claims to space and incurage several smaller active gangs to form instead of one massive blob.


I think this guy is onto something. If more systems were interconnected then some systems would not be more overly important than others. And if you could now bypass certain 'hubs' then that would encourage smaller claims of space.


Blobs arise from two sources really.

First from groups consisting in general of people without strict organisation or chain of command, or even people with a different primary perspective then pvp. You see this kind of blob pop up primarily from defensive reactions. Think of now long dead organisations, pet / citizen organisations, but also in settings where the masters incorporate or rally the affiliates / renters / pets.
This is the kind of blob which will become much more flexible, both in movements as well as activity in general.

Secondly from groups who have a strict focus on projecting force through both presence and objectives, with less care for methods or means. It's something of a BOB trauma in all honesty, which over the years has cultivated a mindset of putting the wagons in a circle against the evil baddies on all levels (fleets, production capacity, finance, etc). The practical result is what is often jokingly referred to as the napland. Application of force through a direct concentration of force on objectives. Some people call this minimising risk at all cost, and to a degree this is true, but we must not forget how this is something that has grown over the course of years.
For this kind of blob, no changes will ever have any impact whatsoever, since it is not about kills or losses, or dominating a grid or having fun regardless of consequences. This is a school of thought where the only thing of importance is the big picture over a long period of time, hence the complete willingness to shift 2k+ people around without a fight, as long as it denies an opponent getting even close to an objective. Keep in mind that these days such movements use gates less and less, because of the mobility provided through the bulk of titan portals available. The widespread presence of this type of group, and the mentality that goes hand in hand with it, is the reason the removal of the area effect doomsday worries me quite a bit.
Recognising the multitude of hickups with Titans in great numbers which are being addressed by the cyno jammer and bridge changes, I have difficulty understanding why the only factor which has ever forced people to think before blobbing is that easily removed. Cost, time, manpower, all such variables are unimportant at this level, only the prospect of the projection of force being cut off hard through doomsdays (even knowing how ineffective they are) has ever been a factor against blind blobs.

Interconnection of systems is a good thing, but so is the concept of chokepoints. Most people think of interconnection as the hub, not many people see interconnection as a means of maneuvering around hubs, chokepoints and other people in general. There are plenty places on the map where such options are very limited, both for conventional and capital travel. Sometimes this presents benefits in its own right, but very often we see that ultimately pressure is focused mostly towards station systems and region connection points.

Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2009.09.13 11:55:00 - [535]
 

Wild speculation time:

So maybe sovereignty will be contested in sort of the same way as FW systems are. Except that those facilities that you attack aren't just for looks but have an actual function for the owner of the system (could be deadspace pockets where players are the ones extracting resources).

Maybe some player run agent functionality can be put in place as well, where agents are rewarding you isk (perhaps even loyalty points) when you accumulate victory points in a system of a designated enemy. Open up the game a bit more for mercenaries and make the NBSI policy a bit more unattractive.

iP0D
Posted - 2009.09.13 12:01:00 - [536]
 

Originally by: Aralis


All pretty clear. THough I assume the bit about a mail to alliance leaderships is a joke. I hope CCP would never consider getting in the game so directly. But the trouble is that NRDS is Eve on hard mode. It does clearly require a lot more work - why should most people do it? Certainly this patch is all set to make life a lot harder for NRDS and gotta wonder if we can keep it up in these conditions. Also for the same sort of reasons alliances will be much less inclined to let anyone else set up camp near them. The risks are going up.


I doubt it will get that hard or complicated, in all honesty. But say it did get completely impractical and crazy. You could always establish open door institutions for bypassing the NRDS.

Think of it as a delayed mode NRDS: corporations can join a premade affiliate alliance, pilots can join a premade affiliate corporation.
Yes, a delayed mode of 24 hours. But should matters become complicated this winter with NRDS this could become a more practical yet still extremely open alternative approach.

You could still have NRDS, with an added bonus of streamlined standings grouping. Not everyone would have to enter affiliated organisations, obviously, transition phases would be perfectly possible.

Aquinzus
Amarr
Modern Marvels
Posted - 2009.09.13 12:56:00 - [537]
 

I think more people agree that NBSI is the sole reason people dont travel to 0.0, why in the world would anyone want to go to a place where they know they will be shot and killed with no other reason than you were there.

NRDS is really the way to go if your going to develop any kind of space. While I see Providence the most densly populated area of 0.0, I go into Catch, Immensia, Curse, Great Wildlands, Delve and Querious and see so many empty systems with nothing there and not a soul in sight of anything.

All of that space claimed and wasted, but the minute a couple guys in a bantam and bestower show up to mine there is a blob there to kill him because he is neutral, and they can add another notch to the killboard and brag how thier mighty fleet of 50 slew the Bestower and Bantom menace.

Instead they could of showed the guys where the nearest refinery was and collected a tax on the ore refined, and a docking fee from the rats they killed.

NBSI is broken, has been forever, NRDS is the only way 0.0 will ever become popluated, just shoot the bad guys, whoever may be bad to you and leave the rest to go about and do thier thing and reap the rewards of them in your space using your services, instead of bleeding your own Alliance and Corp members on the markets.

But I guess not everyone thinks long term, this patch may make them change, may not, I hardly doubt it.

Bobby Smyth
THORN Syndicate
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.09.13 13:26:00 - [538]
 

I think we, as in the large alliances, underestimate the will of small alliances.

All it will take it requires is one covert op to slip through our gate camps with a cyno gen and they can get people and supplies through with 1 rorqual and 1 carrier. I welcome the new changes with open arms and hope the waste of 0.0 space that goes on over most of eve ends with Dominion.


Joscelline Angreal
Posted - 2009.09.13 14:18:00 - [539]
 

One thing I've noticed in this thread is that people seem to assume that everything will be claimed, just more alliances will be doing the claiming. I imagine CCP wants to change 0.0 to a system where an alliance controls a small area (region), but in a lot of cases isn't directly bordering another alliance's sov. There will be small bubbles of sov space, seperated by tracks of unclaimed space. With big alliances not willing/able to hold the tracks of unclaimed space, and small alliances lacking the strength to hold it, these unclaimed areas would become hidden highways and no-mans land. Thats where the fun will be.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.09.13 14:18:00 - [540]
 

We have enough info to guesstimate some of these so lets go:

Originally by: Aquinzus
1. On patch day will soverignty be reset for everyone to 0 until they go and plant a bunker flag whatever?

Presumably the various Sovereignty and Infrastructure Structures will be seeded to the market a week or two in advance, so spaceholding alliances will have the opportunity to plant them in preparation for the new system when it goes live.

Quote:
2. What will be the requirements to have a Cyno Jammer ?

One or more of the new Infrastructure upgrades.

Quote:
3. What will be the requirements to have a Jump bridge ?

One or more of the new Infrastructure upgrades.

Quote:
4. What will be the requirements to have an outpost ?

Drop and fill the egg in any system you have sov in, same as now. Outpost ownership already exists seperately from system sovereignty, so control of existing outposts shouldn't be affected.

Quote:
5. What makes you think CCP that Goons, -A-, PL, NC, CVA, RA, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDeathXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, etc etc etc etc are going to allow anyone to just come on over and claim a system and be left alone?

If economic infrastructure upgrades allow an alliance to make as much income from a single region (or constellation, or system) as previously required 2 or 3 regions, whilst r64 tweaks reduce the incentive to hold massive amounts of dyspro moons, what makes you think that Goons, -A-, PL, NC, CVA, RA, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDeathXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, etc etc etc etc will need to keep holding on to the massive sprawling (and largely deserted) empires they currently claim?

Goonswarm currently holds Delve and most of Querious. 95% of us live in Delve, our Querious systems are virtually empty apart from the odd goon in a covops scanning out exploration sites, a handful of NPC corp macro-ravens, and a load of towers with expensive fuel bills. We hold Querious because a) its full of r64s, b) its full of Sov4 constellations to act as a buffer from invasion, and c) we need to secure the routes from Delve to Highsec for logistics purposes (such as moving POS fuel for literally thousands of towers from Empire every month).

If, as expected, Dominion significantly reduces the value of all three of these factors, we might well decide that, you know what, we don't need both regions, just a token presence in a handful of Querious systems and we can drop the rest. (maybe)

Quote:
Do you think that Johnny Q Spaceman and his 100 man Alliance outfit is going to be able to walk into someones space and claim it just because you cant claim it with pos anymore your wrong. Johnny and his buddies will be smacked down and sent back home to empire and that same space will sit there with 0 Sov level on it still controlled by same poeple as before.

Its not about being 'able to walk into someones space', its about giving an incentive for existing space holders to drop the vast expanses of territory they need today and create vacuums that new entities can use. Maybe nothing will change and all today's big players will decide to hold on to everything, but at least that will be a player-driven choice rather than what we have today - where the current system forces us all to claim and hold vast swathes of systems we barely use so that we can hoover as many r64s as possible.


Pages: first : previous : ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 ... : last (23)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only